1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a tether for securing a bottle in place when in use. The tether is partially rigid, in that it maintains its configuration, but is easily deformable by hand for reconfiguration. The tether maintains a bottle in a desired position, as for example, in a location readily accessible to a small child in an automobile. The tether clamps to an environmental surface, such as a child seat, and includes a frangible section which ruptures in the event of a collision. This feature assists in preventing the bottle from aggravating injury due to violent movement induced during the collision.
2. Description of the Prior Art
Bottle holders of the partially rigid type are well known in the art. Bottle holders are generally intended for holding a feeding bottle in close proximity to an infant or small child in a readily accessible location. Typically, the holder comprises apparatus for securement to an environmental surface, a partially rigid neck or tether, and apparatus for releasably grasping the bottle. The partially rigid neck is rigid in the sense that it maintains a form, but readily deformable by hand for reconfiguration. Such necks are widely employed for lamps, and conventionally comprise a tube formed from a spiralled metal strip.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,114,847, issued to Joseph Bogensberger on Sep. 19, 1978, and 5,192,041, issued to Sheree M. Bryant on Mar. 9, 1993, exemplify bottle holders. Both examples include a clamp or suction cup, or both, for engaging an environmental surface. Both include a partially rigid neck or tether, and apparatus for securing the bottle on the neck.
The above patents are more relevant to use when transporting a child in an automobile. U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,425,653, issued to William Rauch on Feb. 4, 1969, and 4,733,836, issued to Robert J. Barnes on Mar. 29, 1988, both illustrate bottle holders for children, but apparatus for mounting in the latter two cases is less suited for automobile environments.
Regardless of the mounting, the prior art has generally failed to consider implications regarding safety in the event of a collision. Inertial and other forces may cause the mass of a bottle to swing about rapidly. The bottle thus threatens to become injurious, simply as a mass able to inflict blunt force trauma, or as a source of sharp shards of glass or like material should it break. Thus, unlike the present invention, the prior art has failed to provide means for mitigating potentially injurious motion of the bottle and its holder in the event of collision.
None of the above inventions and patents, taken either singly or in combination, is seen to describe the instant invention as claimed.